Sir William Wallace (c. 1270 – August 23, 1305) was a Scots knight who led his countrymen in resistance to English domination in the reign of King Edward I, during significant periods of the Wars of Scottish Independence.

Tradition often describes Wallace as 'one of the common people', contrasted to his countrymen, such as Robert the Bruce, who came from noble stock. Wallace's family descends from Richard Wallace the Welshman, a landowner under an early member of the House of Stuart, which later became royal lineage.

There is so much about William Wallace I am finding since the movie Braveheart came out. It gets mixed up at times. How do you know what is legend and what is truth? William Wallace is my great uncle. According to our family history he was raised by my grandfather, Alexander Kneland. I wrote a paper for school about him and the Battle of Sterling Bridge where he became known as the guardian of Scotland. As far as I understand from all I have found so far. William Wallace is no commoner as his family owned land but he is no nobleman either. Yet he is great and mighty and will remembered as the guardian of Scotland and without him Scotland would have fallen to the English long before it did and Robert the Bruce would have never become king of Scotland. RebeccaAnn

Hi Rebecca Ann- I will agree the movie Braveheart really took my interest in my herritage. At one point I heard rumors of a Braveheart 2 "would be about Robert The Bruce.."I haven't heard anything about it recently I have some great books to suggest everyone read here is the list.

A Passion For Scotland by David R. RossFor Freedom, The Last Days of William Wallace by David R. RossDesire Lines- David R. RossWilliam Wallace Guardian of Scotland by A.F. MurisonWilliam Wallace by James MackayRobert The Bruce Ronald McNair ScottOn The Trail Of Robert The Bruce by David R. Ross

It sounds like some folks don't want to bring past wrongs into the light of day.

No review of William Wallace’s conviction for treason in 1305

Two miscarriages of justice watchdogs have formally ruled that the name of Scots hero William Wallace can never be cleared.

The body that examines potential miscarriages of justice in Scotland was asked to review Wallace's 700-year-old conviction, widely regarded as trumped-up charges against the man who led the Scottish army in the Wars of Independence.

However, the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission has decided it has no jurisdiction over the London court that found him guilty of treason.

SCCRC chief executive Gerry Sinclair said: "I was asked whether we could consider the conviction of William Wallace. I had to point out that, as he had been tried and punished in London, it did not fall within our jurisdiction, but would be for the English Commission to consider."

Mr Sinclair said his team also decided not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest to do so.

He said: "Our own statutory provisions place no time limit on the review of cases, but clearly some time limit has to be applied, as it cannot be in the interests of justice to spend public time and resources on historical miscarriages which can achieve no practical benefit today."

The SCCRC's English counterpart yesterday confirmed it would never pursue the Wallace case.

The Criminal Case Review Commission said it would not review cases such as Wallace's because of tougher appeal court rules south of the border.

Scots historians have long claimed that William Wallace was wrongly convicted of treason in London in 1305, accused of betraying an English crown he did not recognise.

Many of these experts have been keen to see a review of the case, saying the trial was designed to show that English law held sway north of the border.

Professor Tom Devine, head of the school of history, classics and archaeology at Edinburgh University, said: "The treason charge was simply a concoction based on the assumption that Scotland was a province of England and in that sense it was a mistrial.

"Scotland had been recognised as an independent nation by the Papacy and, therefore, any treason charge was just a reflection of an arrogant English monarchy."

I had thought that Wallace had led a victory against the English (at Stirling?) where it was the first time in a long time (a millenium?) where a large army of only foot had defeated an army with calvary... Anyone know? Maybe I am thinking only of some Hollywood script filler material.

The article is typical rubbish who have an utterly distorted view of wallace.Wallace and his pursuits against the english was the result of a personal vendetta against the english. Scotland benefiting from his exploits is niether here nor there. William Wallace was not a noble freedom fighter, fighting for the common man of scotland. In reality he was a contreverial figure who shocked and age hardened to brutality. He and his men massacred many woman and children and pilliged and raped their way across northern england. I would strongly argue that his conduct against the english was a lot worse than the english conduct against the scots.

William Wallace to me is a fascinating historical figure. Was a hero, in certain terms yes. Was he this noble figure of scottish history that we should adore and admire?. I dont thinkso.

hello glaswegian,a few facts to right.Edward1 attacked Berwick on Tweed and destroyed the town. His soldiers raped ,killed and mutilated any thing that moved, until Edward intervened to put a stop to it. Wallace did some things that would be considered barbaric but then that was the times they lived in. Our modern day sensibilities baulk at this , but then that was the way it was. At the Battle of Stirling Bridge. It was a small narrow bridge,only two mounted horsemen could pass at a time. Andrew de Moray, Wallaces co leader and who had gained back the castles in the North from the English, was a master at strategy. It was De Moray who said let the English cavalry pass over the bridge, when enough had gathered he ordered the attack. Due to the narrowness of the bridge the Scots massacred the "invincible" English cavalry. Unfortunately De Moray was fatally wounded at this battle, and so faded into history. Another thing that the english "Lords" envoked was the practice of taking newly wed women from their husbands, before marriage consumation, and trying to ensure that English blood was in scottish children. This also happens in modern warfare, the raping of defeated nations women ensure s that the conquering genes win out to further subjagate the losing nation. Wallace should be seen as an iconic figure as should Andrew De Moray, and many others that seem to have been overlooked.Slainte,Rhymer.

Sadly, some of the same crimes against hummanity still continue to this day. Who can forget the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 or some of the crimes commited in India and China today. Sometimes we have ot askourselves wether despite all our technological advancements have we as human beings progreed all that much. Just a thought.

Also, we all the reboots that are coming out today in the movies you would think that someone would have done a more factual reboot of William Wallace by now. Hey Hollywood-listening?

--------------------

Unavoidably Detained by the World

"Irishness is not primary a question of birth or blood or language; it is the condition on being involved in the Irish situation, and usually of being mauled by it."-Conor Cruise O'Brien

I think alot of these historical accounts are probably true. It is a stark reminder of the evil and brutality that lies in all men and women. We are only talking a mere 600 years ago - a drop in the bucket in evolutionary times.

I agree that perhaps William Wallace got all of the staredom because of the movie, but I wonder if Robert the Bruce was perhaps more of a hero?

All this history if fascinating! It's difficult to know (for sure) what to believe since so many claim to be authorities on this or that, which leaves the casual reader or beginning student at a loss.

Here, in the US, anyone can claim to be an expert on a given subject, either in book form on conversation. There is very little one can do to (easily) verify if that person truly is the authority they claim to be. I'm curious, is there some way, across the pond, as it were, for people to rate an expert's expertise...?